Skip to comments.A game-changer by Obama
Posted on 10/27/2008 9:15:23 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The tape recording of an interview that Barack Obama gave to Radio Station WBEZ in Chicago in 2001 surfaced, and in that interview Mr. Obama, then a law professor and a state senator, lays out how he would redistribute the wealth. He sounds like a man with a plan. ....
Mr. Obama doesn't think much of the Constitution, or even of the Supreme Court justices who have rewritten it over the years to accommodate notions of "social justice." The Warren Court, which wrote finis to public-school segregation with its unanimous Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, has been decried since as radical, but it wasn't radical enough. Earl Warren only pretended to be a soldier of the revolution.
One of the "tragedies of the civil-rights movement," Mr. Obama says, is that the Supreme Court did not address redistribution of wealth, probably because of the inherent difficulty of achieving such goals through the courts. The Supreme Court did not break from the restraints of the Constitution and "we still suffer from that." Mr. Obama is not "optimistic" that the Supreme Court can achieve redistribution of wealth - of taking from the workers to give to the deadbeats - but he obviously thinks he knows how to do it. A president with a compliant Congress, which he expects to be in January, can do it through legislation and "administration."
The Barack Obama of this interview clearly does not think much of what the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us: "The Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on to this day. The framers had that same blind spot ... the fundamental flaw of this country."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Like many of us have been saying for months and months: Heeeees a commieeeee.
People are not listening; They have already made up their mind.
Half the country is Commie now, they could not care less he is one also. Even if he loses this election, I fear for our country.
Not so, in the IBD TIPP poll, undecideds are still running at 10% of the electorate.
I don’t think so. Lots of undecideds in almost every poll. They’ll break for McCain as it is, but with this scary socialism stuff they’ll run away from Barry (just happens that McCain is the only other viable candidate).
I hope you both are right. That being said, we should keep pushing the story!
LOL, people aren’t listening because they understand ZERO about tax rates, economy, the Constitution, the SC, socialism, or capitalism.
They vote for who offers gov goodies, and who gets the best press.
Where was McCain?
“Communist” is an effective charge.
It has the advantage of being true.
McCain just drools and preens.
With 7 days to go, this is a boost for the fact that Obama intends to steal people’s money, and give away to buy votes.
Why is it that Democrats seem to have the most problems with the Constitution?
Yes, I know the standard answers, but bear with me. Are not liberals usually the ones who are so concerned about everyone’s constitutional rights? It’s always the left who worries that someone’s rights are being infringed, usually in some contorted, strained context.
Here we are, supposed to be worried about Bushitler listening in on calls originating into or out of Afghanistan (as if there couldn’t possibly be a national security interest in doing so), and apparently the leftist presidential nominee has a problem with the central f-ing concept of the Constitution as a limit on governmental power. WTH?
Lest we forget that President Wilson thought the Constitution was outdated 90 years ago and unnecessarily limited the power of the president. Ditto for FDR.
Every leftist professes love for the Consitution and bemoans threats to it, while at the same time essentially denouncing it as an antiquated document for which allegiance to it signifies membership in the John Birch Society.
Libbies are friggin’ schizo about the Constitution. Obama is no different.
You’re exactly right. People have made up their minds. No one cares. You’d have to have film of him killing Jimmy Hoffa at this point. Absent a comet strike, or something like the above, no game changers. Doesn’t necessarily mean McCain will lose, but, well . . . you are correct. The “socialist” stuff is falling on deaf ears and a waste of time. But, I suppose, with so little time left it’s all McCain has.
The link you posted with this article, seems to have been taken over by spammers
http: //www.freerepublic.com/^http: //washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/28/a-game-changer-by-obama-himself/
When I clicked on it it came up with all sorts of pop-ups and offers to download spyware software...
The Obama campaign is giving some lame excuse about the opinions on a legal point by a professor do not equate with the policies of a politician and the mainstream media is supporting the explanation. The same argument didn’t go over too well when Robert Bork was making the same point but apparently times have changed.
Youd have to have film of him killing Jimmy Hoffa at this point.
They would say Hoffa must have deserved it.
Same here. I click on the link and crap started downloading on my computer.
LOL Well said.
Where do you people get your information? Both McCain and Palin called Obama’s policies socialist today in their speeches.
He's a terrorist mole.
I think the Washington Times site has been hacked. Even if I go directly to their site and try to pull up this article, I get a blank page. Others in this thread are reporting popups and attempts to access their computer.
Half the country is FOR Socialism. That’s a selling point to them.
Transcipt: Chicago Public Radio Interview WBEZ.FM
Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM
And were joined by Barack Obama, who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th District and a senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago
Obama: you know if you look at, um, the victories and the failures of the civil rights movement, um, and, its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights, uh, in, previously dispossessed peoples, so that uh I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I would be okay, uh, but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth. Uh, and, served more basic issues of political and, and, uh, economic justice in this society. And, uh, to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren court, uh, it wasnt that radical. It didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed, uh, uh, by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states cant do to you, says what the federal government cant do to you, but it doesnt say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. Uh, and that hasnt shifted, and one of the, uh, I think, uh the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and, and activities on the ground, that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive, uh, change, uh, and, uh in some ways we still suffer from that.
[He just said its a tragedy the constitution wasnt radically reinterpreted to force redistribution of wealth for African Americans. And its still an issue today.]
HOST: Lets talk with Karen, good morning Karen, youre on Chicago Public Radio.
CALLER: Hi, um, the gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasnt, uh, terribly radical. My question is — um, with economic changes. My question is, is it to late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and, is that the appropriate place for reparative — economic work to take place
HOST: you mean the court?
CALLER: the courts, or would it be legislation at this point?
OBAMA: Uh, you know, maybe Im showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but uh, Im not optimistic about bringing about, uh, major, uh, redistribute, uh, uh, change, uh through the courts, um — you know the institution just isnt structured that way.
[He doesnt think the courts can do it but he does think the court can do it legislatively. It isnt too late]
Uh, um, you know you just should look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order uh, uh, you know changes that cost money, to uh, local school district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it, it was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. Uh, you start getting into all sorts of uh separation of powers issues, uh, you know in terms of, uh, the court monitoring or engaging in a process uh that, essentially, is administrative and takes a lot of time.
[He just said redistribution of wealth is an administrative task!!!]
Um, you know and, the court just isnt very good at it and politically its just its very hard to legitimize opinions, from the, uh, from the court in that regard. So I mean I think that, uh, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, um, you know I think you can — any three of us sitting here could, could come up with, uh, a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.
[This is not a discussion about whether redistribution of wealth is right or wrong. This is a discussion about how best to do it!!!]
FAST FORWARD TO 2008:
Joe the Plumber: .plan is going to tax me more. Doesnt it?
Obama: Its not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that theyve got a chance at success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody.
Lazy left-wing moonbats would sell out the constitution for a piece of pie....as long as they don’t have to earn, buy or bake the pie themselves.
I was over at Political Punch today - the Jake Tapper ABC blog - and it’s just amazing how many people rationalize the spread the wealth statement. Either they talk around it, they blame the Republicans for something or other, or they outright think this socialism is the way it should be. Many of the comments are made by people who sound like they have the emotional maturity of an 11th grader.
Yeah....we’ve got big problems even if BO loses.
The person "behind" Joe already has a chance a success....the same chance Joe has.
“Socialist” is not “Communist”.
“Socialist” finally crossed their lips in the last week or two.
Where were they all Summer?
A: Playing nice.
I think an intersting question is - if liberals love the Constitution so much, why do they hate justices who interpret it strictly?
And of course honest leftists know the Constitution is a huge obstacle to their cause. But yeah, the average liberal is totally schizo about it.
Commie, Socialist, Fascist, it all fits.
Obama is a National Socialist
www.freerepublic.com ^ | October 27, 2008 | Kevmo
Posted on Monday, October 27, 2008 4:19:47 PM by Kevmo
They are truly mentally sick.
I spent the past Saturday surrounded by them while at a football game.
They blame President Bush for our economic problems, and do not mention Dodd, Obama or Pelosi for the responsibility.
They are all crazy.
It's very lonely being a Conservative sometimes.
Obama could be caught having sex with Osama Bin Laden,
confess to killing Elvis
take responsiblity for the Oklahoma City Bombing
Run over a crosswalk full of kids while driving drunk
...... and he would still get the same number of votes
the more that the shocking commie/terrorist information surfaces the better he does
I heard a new one.People are voting for Obama but don’t really like him and feel he won’t last in office and Biden will take over.At last Biden has a reason to be on the ballot:)He is very popular here in PA burgs.
“Not so, in the IBD TIPP poll, undecideds are still running at 10% of the electorate.”
And most are going to break for McCain.
The left just wants enemies of the United States to have unlimited freedom to commit espionage and terrorism. They also want common criminals and deviants to have extensive freedom to destabilize society. That does not mean they want ordinary people to live in freedom. That is why they want to silence Rush Limbaugh but they have no problem with Islamists inciting violence. That is why your Bible is a horrible, offensive intolerant book but pornographic "art" that blasphemes God is a wonderful manifestation of tolerance. That is why they are little troubled by violent criminals using guns but they are horrified that a peaceful citizen keeps a gun in his house. That is why a foreign terrorist has the rights of a citizen while a citizen has no rights.
A Commie. A megalomaniac. A liar. A Satanist baby-killer.
The very fact that the Democrat Party—as a socialist, baby-killing, treasonous party—even exists is the result largely of the biggest, most fraudulent, most powerful, most godless, most socialist enterprise of all. And most Americans can’t see it, and it’s right under their nose: Government School.
... and President of the United States?
Lazy left-wing moonbats would sell out the constitution for a piece of pie....
And BTW, other than the markets being manipulated in the last 9 months on gas and the stock market, to push the election to the DEMS, the last 8 years were better for me and my family than the Clinton years!
How easily the American people loose perspective of what we all went through on 9/11 and still, for now, live in the BEST Country in the World!
“The person “behind” Joe already has a chance a success....the same chance Joe has”...
Very true-like I say: All men may be created equal, but they don’t stay that way for very long.
For a close election like this one, it is a game changer. The Joe the Plumber exchange has been out there for about a month and this is all sinking into the electorate. It is creating doubt on Hussein.
The majority of undecideds (and moderates) will break for McCain.
McCain is running a campaign that is at least as effective as Bob Dole’s.